CMN-504
Writing Assignment One
Forensic Argument Brief
INTRODUCTION:
Your task is to compose an argumentative brief—essentially an outline of a legal argument—focused on a cold case from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s victim list, and exploiting the argumentative resources of classical forensic rhetoric.
CHOOSING AND RESEARCHING A CASE:
You should view the NH Attorney General’s “Victim List” to see the full list of unsolved murders and missing person cases in New Hampshire (those marked “solved” cannot be used). The list is available on Canvas, and can also be viewed here:
Based on the information provided about each case, make a preliminary selection from the available cases. Do some additional research about the case to gather more information. The amount of available information about the different cases varies widely. The more information you have, the more material you can use to compose an argument.
Using both on-line and library sources, (including microforms for local New Hampshire newspapers like the Manchester Union Leader, Concord Monitor, and Foster’s Daily Democrat),
you should check news stories about the case.
For newspapers, see: https://www.library.unh.edu/find/newspapers-microforms, or ask a Librarian for assistance. Also, WMUR has done a series of short documentaries on many unsolved New Hampshire cases. See: https://www.wmur.com/search?q=Unsolved
ANALYSIS:
You should consider all of the Roman forensic topics (lines of argument) from the list of attributes provided and discussed in class. Determine which of the attributes of person or attributes of action may produce the strongest arguments in support of your conclusion about the case. Your goal is to reach a tentative conclusion about what likely occurred in the case, and then provide the arguments and evidence to support that conclusion. You will not be expected to solve the case. The point is for you to demonstrate your ability to utilize the forensic topics to undertake an analysis of a challenging legal case, and explore how certain questions can yield more or less likely conclusions. You should select the four or five topics that help you generate the most compelling arguments to support your conclusion.
COMPOSING THE BRIEF:
Your forensic brief should have four parts.
Introduction: The first part should be a short narrative introduction (no more than a page) in which you identify the key facts in the case, including the names and backgrounds of the people involved, the time and location of the alleged crime, and the various circumstances related to the case. Here you will briefly compile the information you have gathered about the case. Be sure to cite all the sources you have used to discover the information you present.
Thesis: In the second brief section (no more than a paragraph), you will advance your theory about what was likely to have happened in the case you are investigating, and your conclusion about who may have been responsible. This doesn’t mean you will be expected to solve the case; rather, it is your best guess about the most probable explanation for the crime. To be sure, you do not need to name a particular person as a responsible party if that is not possible. You could, for example, offer a theory about the perpetrator being “a man the victim likely knew from the local area,” or “a passing motorist who was not from the area.” The point is to offer a conclusion about the case that can be supported by the arguments you will make. Based on the arguments and evidence you present, it should be clear that your conclusion is more probable than any of the alternative theories about the case.
Argument: In the third and longest section of your forensic brief, you will present an outline of the argument in support of your case. The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate your reasoning about the case, showing how you applied the attributes in your analysis to reach reasonable conclusions about the case. You want to present arguments based on at least four or five attributes that seem the most relevant to your case. They should be both attributes of the person (either applied to the victim, or to the likely perpetrator), and attributes of the action. You should use as many of the attributes as you can, as long as each attribute you employ adds to the probability of your conclusion. If you can generate ten or twelve arguments that show a particular suspect is the likely perpetrator, then you should make all those arguments. The brief (or outline) of your argument should be constructed as follows:
For each section of your argument, begin by citing the attribute you are using from Cicero’s De Inventione (nature, habit, manner of life, time, place, facilities, occasion, genus, etc.).
Then present the details or facts (including any physical evidence) from your case to show how a focus on that attribute reveals something about your case that creates a probability.
The probability may be something about the person(s) involved (victim or perpetrator): “the victim’s habit of walking her dog late at night in a remote rural area made her an easier target.”
or the probability may be something about the criminal act itself: “the fact that the victim left all his belongings behind suggests his disappearance was not voluntary.”
State the particular way in which each of the arguments you make confirms the theory or conclusion you advanced in section two.
Conclusion: In about a paragraph, summarize the main thesis or conclusion, and review the main pieces of evidence that support your understanding of the case.